Obvious teams to me would be Houston, San Fran, Baltimore, Philly, & the Giants. Rodgers and Brady prop up the offenses, I feel they would just be average without them pulling the trigger, and neither team as a particularly good defense. San Fran isn't particularly good at QB or receiver. Houston doesn't have much depth at receiver and Daniels has never been the same post injury. For Baltimore, Cary Williams is terrible, and the interior of the o line can be had, also the pass rush has adjusted well to Suggs is absence, but a good number of backups on the defense would start elsewhere. Philly's only real weaknesses are oline and linebackers, and the same could be said for the Giants. I don't think there's a clear cut answer I'd lean Baltimore in terms of talent and game changers, but San Francisco or Houston in terms of production.

What backups on Baltimore's denfense would start elsewhere? Im not arguing anything against their starting defense, but I dont see what backups would be starters.

And the Eagles LBs are not a weakness anymore. Ryans has been good for them and Kendricks has been playing very well.

Whoa... It's weird not seeing the distinct Tomlin avi anymore.

Haha...youre like the 5th person to say that.

Weird for me too, to be honest. _________________

pnies20 wrote:

I know I'm one of the biggest trolls on here, but dont call me on it. I can dish it but cant take it.

What backups on Baltimore's denfense would start elsewhere? Im not arguing anything against their starting defense, but I dont see what backups would be starters.

And the Eagles LBs are not a weakness anymore. Ryans has been good for them and Kendricks has been playing very well.

Jimmy Smith, Danell Ellerbe, Arthur Jones, Terrence Cody, Albert Mcclellan assuming he loses his spot to Suggs. I'm not saying they would be top line starters, but there are a good number of teams they would start for. Good point on the Eagles linebackers.

Obvious teams to me would be Houston, San Fran, Baltimore, Philly, & the Giants. Rodgers and Brady prop up the offenses, I feel they would just be average without them pulling the trigger, and neither team as a particularly good defense. San Fran isn't particularly good at QB or receiver. Houston doesn't have much depth at receiver and Daniels has never been the same post injury. For Baltimore, Cary Williams is terrible, and the interior of the o line can be had, also the pass rush has adjusted well to Suggs is absence, but a good number of backups on the defense would start elsewhere. Philly's only real weaknesses are oline and linebackers, and the same could be said for the Giants. I don't think there's a clear cut answer I'd lean Baltimore in terms of talent and game changers, but San Francisco or Houston in terms of production.

What backups on Baltimore's denfense would start elsewhere? Im not arguing anything against their starting defense, but I dont see what backups would be starters.

And the Eagles LBs are not a weakness anymore. Ryans has been good for them and Kendricks has been playing very well.

Yeah, truth be told i'd have Vick as a weakness over their LBers at this point. In fact, between him and the o-line, that's entirely what keeps Philly out of this discussion for me. With a healthy Jason Peters, it'd just be Vick._________________

NS922 wrote:

All on LOLton for page stretching to Green Idk what happened my phone graduated to ROFLtron

Obvious teams to me would be Houston, San Fran, Baltimore, Philly, & the Giants. Rodgers and Brady prop up the offenses, I feel they would just be average without them pulling the trigger, and neither team as a particularly good defense. San Fran isn't particularly good at QB or receiver. Houston doesn't have much depth at receiver and Daniels has never been the same post injury. For Baltimore, Cary Williams is terrible, and the interior of the o line can be had, also the pass rush has adjusted well to Suggs is absence, but a good number of backups on the defense would start elsewhere. Philly's only real weaknesses are oline and linebackers, and the same could be said for the Giants. I don't think there's a clear cut answer I'd lean Baltimore in terms of talent and game changers, but San Francisco or Houston in terms of production.

What backups on Baltimore's denfense would start elsewhere? Im not arguing anything against their starting defense, but I dont see what backups would be starters.

And the Eagles LBs are not a weakness anymore. Ryans has been good for them and Kendricks has been playing very well.

Whichever of Jimmy Smith and Cary Williams that doesn't start would start for NE.

I like how people come in and say the Pack or the Pats can't be #1 because without Rodgers or Brady, they'd be average. You don't think these teams were built around those two? Not only with personnel but schematically too. You'd be canned immediately if you didn't build around a player like that. Plus the money teams shell out for a top flight QB is what keeps them from putting as many good players around them, usually at the expense of the defensive side of the ball. Schaub is not that caliber of player, Houston is built on offense to grind out long possessions to keep their defense fresh and flying around. They are young and they are talented, but I would not say they are the NFL's most talented team, and it really isn't close. I'd take Green Bay and New England for sure and then put them in with Baltimore, Philly, San Fran and maybe a healthy Pittsburgh team._________________

I like how people come in and say the Pack or the Pats can't be #1 because without Rodgers or Brady, they'd be average. You don't think these teams were built around those two? Not only with personnel but schematically too. You'd be canned immediately if you didn't build around a player like that. Plus the money teams shell out for a top flight QB is what keeps them from putting as many good players around them, usually at the expense of the defensive side of the ball. Schaub is not that caliber of player, Houston is built on offense to grind out long possessions to keep their defense fresh and flying around. They are young and they are talented, but I would not say they are the NFL's most talented team, and it really isn't close. I'd take Green Bay and New England for sure and then put them in with Baltimore, Philly, San Fran and maybe a healthy Pittsburgh team.

Without Rodgers or Brady, those teams aren't in contention for the most talented team. Both of those offenses are a collective sum of their pieces, with Rodgers and Brady being a big part of it.

And what exacty about the Texans doesn't make them the most talent team (besides Schaub at QB)

I think overall the Texans and Eagles are the two most talented squads. Of the two, I'd take the Texans. Forget just the starters, look at some of the backups they have. Behind Foster they have Ben Tate... on another team he could potentially be a top 10 back in the league. Behind their pass rushers they have a promising rookie in Whitney Mercillus, who on a more pass rush needy team might be making a good impact by now.

Depth is what's most important in this discussion IMO. The Texans and Eagles have very good depth FTMP. If the Eagles had some semblance of an OL, than I think they'd win this. Vick is a weakness because he's hot/cold, but he's not going to be mistaken for the worst QB in the league and they have a backup QB that while very inexperienced and needs work, proved he could make all the throws at the collegiate level._________________

Obvious teams to me would be Houston, San Fran, Baltimore, Philly, & the Giants. Rodgers and Brady prop up the offenses, I feel they would just be average without them pulling the trigger, and neither team as a particularly good defense. San Fran isn't particularly good at QB or receiver. Houston doesn't have much depth at receiver and Daniels has never been the same post injury. For Baltimore, Cary Williams is terrible, and the interior of the o line can be had, also the pass rush has adjusted well to Suggs is absence, but a good number of backups on the defense would start elsewhere. Philly's only real weaknesses are oline and linebackers, and the same could be said for the Giants. I don't think there's a clear cut answer I'd lean Baltimore in terms of talent and game changers, but San Francisco or Houston in terms of production.

What backups on Baltimore's denfense would start elsewhere? Im not arguing anything against their starting defense, but I dont see what backups would be starters.

And the Eagles LBs are not a weakness anymore. Ryans has been good for them and Kendricks has been playing very well.

Whichever of Jimmy Smith and Cary Williams that doesn't start would start for NE.

Likewise, whichever of Dennis Pitta or Ed Dickson doesn't start would start for some teams.

Well, Cary Williams IMO wouldnt start on most teams. Jimmy Smith IMO is simply not "there" yet, but will be soon.

And we were only talking about defense. Abd Dickson IMO, while having big potential, has been very inconsistent._________________

pnies20 wrote:

I know I'm one of the biggest trolls on here, but dont call me on it. I can dish it but cant take it.

Obvious teams to me would be Houston, San Fran, Baltimore, Philly, & the Giants. Rodgers and Brady prop up the offenses, I feel they would just be average without them pulling the trigger, and neither team as a particularly good defense. San Fran isn't particularly good at QB or receiver. Houston doesn't have much depth at receiver and Daniels has never been the same post injury. For Baltimore, Cary Williams is terrible, and the interior of the o line can be had, also the pass rush has adjusted well to Suggs is absence, but a good number of backups on the defense would start elsewhere. Philly's only real weaknesses are oline and linebackers, and the same could be said for the Giants. I don't think there's a clear cut answer I'd lean Baltimore in terms of talent and game changers, but San Francisco or Houston in terms of production.

What backups on Baltimore's denfense would start elsewhere? Im not arguing anything against their starting defense, but I dont see what backups would be starters.

And the Eagles LBs are not a weakness anymore. Ryans has been good for them and Kendricks has been playing very well.

Yeah, truth be told i'd have Vick as a weakness over their LBers at this point. In fact, between him and the o-line, that's entirely what keeps Philly out of this discussion for me. With a healthy Jason Peters, it'd just be Vick.

Clearly none of you have seen us play since you haven't mentioned our terrible safety play thus far.....It's mostly been Coleman.....but still.....

Despite that, our secondary is still one of the best in the NFL. That's how amazing our CBs have been this year. And people try to say Nnamdi is overrated ....also it seems like DRC has become almost underrated....he is playing at an almost elite level this year.

Our weaknesses are SS and offensive line. That's about it. We have good QB depth with Foles and Edwards behind Vick, so I don't consider QB a weakness.

Texans are the most talented. Then I'd say it's us, TBH. Not to sound like a homer or anything...but we have a ton of talent/depth. San Fran is probably right behind them.._________________

If you could exclude the offensive line then Philadelphia could easily be #1. But that's kind of a crucial component to the game that you can't over look

Got to ride with Texans or Falcons if you factor in Oline.

As far as Vick being a liability, that's BECAUSE of the Oline and maybe the playcalling even more than that.

If they have a far more balanced run/pass ratio, they are the one team no one wants to face. But how likely is that going to happen sadly with the arrogance that Morninwheg and Reid show with their 70/30 pass ratio

I'll tell you who'd really scare me if they ever got healthy and got their act together: The Washington Redskins

RG3 is already tearing up the league
they don't have any marquee talent at RB but in Shanahan's offense they don't really need one to put up big rushing numbers. Alfred Morris is doing just fine.
Their OL is solid
Garçon is a speedster with Mike Wallace-like ability, who just can't seem to eliminate the mistakes from his game. but Leonard Hankerson is the guy who really has all the physical tools to be elite but just hasn't blossomed yet.
Fred Davis is an outstanding young TE.

On defense, they've got two premiere pass rushers in Orakpo and Kerrigan. Their 30 front is underrated, with Carriker, Cofield and Jenkins. DeAngelo Hall is another one of those players who's always had all the physical ability in the world but never could quite get his head on straight. Cedric Griffin was a solid performer for the Vikings in the past. Their one big hole is at safety._________________
Adopt-a-Patriot: Malcolm Butler
Status: Emergent
#OnToBaltimore

I'll tell you who'd really scare me if they ever got healthy and got their act together: The Washington Redskins

RG3 is already tearing up the league
they don't have any marquee talent at RB but in Shanahan's offense they don't really need one to put up big rushing numbers. Alfred Morris is doing just fine.
Their OL is solid
Garçon is a speedster with Mike Wallace-like ability, who just can't seem to eliminate the mistakes from his game. but Leonard Hankerson is the guy who really has all the physical tools to be elite but just hasn't blossomed yet.
Fred Davis is an outstanding young TE.

On defense, they've got two premiere pass rushers in Orakpo and Kerrigan. Their 30 front is underrated, with Carriker, Cofield and Jenkins. DeAngelo Hall is another one of those players who's always had all the physical ability in the world but never could quite get his head on straight. Cedric Griffin was a solid performer for the Vikings in the past. Their one big hole is at safety.

Imagine if their defense played how we expected them to play going into the season?

We thought their offense was going to be the liability this season not their defense

IF their defense was as good as it was last year, they could be 4-0 right now.

THey've score enough points to win every game they've played if they had a good defense behind them